From: | wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd trigger does not work very well |
Date: | 2000-02-28 07:47:21 |
Message-ID: | m12PKtl-0003kGC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> [Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >
> > > 1. Since the trigger is executed as soon as a tuple is inserted/
> > > updated/deleted, it will write pg_pwd before the transaction is
> > > committed. If you then abort the transaction, pg_pwd contains wrong
> > > data.
> >
> > Wow, that implies that every trigger that contains non-database
> > side-effects is potentially bogus. That never occured to me. Perhaps (as a
> > future plan), it would be a good idea to have deferred triggers as well?
> > Now that I think of it, wasn't that the very reason Jan had to invent the
> > separate constraint triggers?
>
> Yes! I remember him talking about this. I bet you can just modify your
> trigger to be of that type.
He could make the trigger look like a by default deferred RI
trigger in pg_trigger, of course. Then it will go onto the
queue.
But as soon as someone does
SET CONSTRAINTS ALL IMMEDIATE;
it will be fired if queued or as soon as it appears. So it's
not the final solution.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-28 07:50:01 | Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiples |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-02-28 07:42:08 | Re: [HACKERS] type coerce problem with lztext |